Kolkata, holding it, is a fundamental right and not morally with a rival company with better allowances and features, even if in search of another job.
Separating the order and punishment of the company’s disciplinary authority, which claims to be the only producer of a special type of insulator film in India, Justice Shampa Dutt directed that he should pay his gratuity dues 1.37 lakhs with simple interest at the rate of 8 percent per year.
In the judgment passed on Thursday, Justice Dutt said, “Looking for another job, even though there is a fundamental right with a rival company with better allowances and facilities and it is not morally because it is not contrary to honesty, humility or good morality.”
The court said that the petitioner company could not prove that any loss or loss, or destruction of property related to the employer was due to any work of the defendant who was involved in rioters, disorganized or morally.
Justice Dutt said, “The conduct of the inquiry authority is clearly abused by power and is completely against the principles of natural justice, there are no independent, specific conclusions of the disciplinary authority against the petitioner.”
The petition before the High Court was transferred against the orders passed by the controlled authority and the Appellate Authority, which directed Sudeep Samant to pay the gratuity dues, who worked as a technician in the company.
Dismissing the company’s petition, the High Court said that the order of the Appellate Authority is well and is within the jurisdiction to the limit of provisions for payment of gratuity and is clearly according to the law.
The court mentioned that the petitioner company could neither produce a witness nor a call record that the rival was in touch with the company.
The witnesses only said that they saw the private defendant talking to some personnel of the rival company, Justice Dutt said.
Samanta convicted allegations against him, the company’s investigating officer recommended his termination, while the said employee also claimed to claim his resignation.
It was alleged that Samanta was in regular contact with a rival company officials, trying to set up a similar unit for the manufacture of the same product, and he was passing confidential information related to the process, receipt and technology for this purpose.
The petitioner claimed that as Samanta was abolished by service due to misconduct, which was morally reduced and therefore, due to continuous damage by the petitioner, his gratuity was confiscated.
Based on the report of the investigating officer, the technician, who joined the company in 2012, was abolished by service on October 11, 2022.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without amending the text.
